GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #16

[Luna15]

There is absolutely no evidence that VT was in the flat prior to Joanna returning home that evening. It's a bit like suggesting that VT had an accomplice. It's introducing speculations that are not founded in the evidence. Furthermore, suggesting that VT was in the flat prior to Joana returning home supports the argument that he was prowling and Joanna's death was a spontaneous reaction: manslaughter. If he was lying in wait, the assault would not have occurred at the entranceway (unusual location of the apron, knocked over furniture), but would have been carefully managed somewhere else in the flat.

Is there something I've missed? Some evidence to suggest that Joanna was attacked away from the entrance? Evidence supporting the theory that VT had access to Joanna's flat? Evidence of forced entry?

I was emailing with a friend this evening and, although I hadn't mentioned this curiosity, he said that he believed VT got Joanna out of her flat, ensuring that no one saw him carrying a limp woman out the door on the side of the building, by dumping her out the bedroom window. I had not considered this possibility, but that makes sense. He dumped her out the window and there was blood on the ground - perhaps that's when her nose was broken. That also ensured that he was not seen at the side of the building carrying her out the entrance.

<< snipped by me

SkyNewsWebster Isabel Webster
#JoYeates boyfriend recalls they would always keep their front door double locked - whether in or out. Windows were also locked.

as I subscribe to the improbable notion that he could have had access to keys I think your theory has a lot of credibility.... even if he didn't, perhaps his own window lock keys were the same and that's why he went back to his own flat to get them.

 

[edgedweller]

After 9 and a half hours, they come back saying "what was the question again?"

If it wasn't so bloody tragic, it would be funny. Wonder how the Yeates family are holding up. I suspect they'll just want it all over with now, whatever the verdict.

 

[edgedweller]

Just as an aside - would rock salt really get rid of all traces of blood on a path? I think there would be enough left for forensics (if they actually checked the whole path?). Especially as the freezing weather would've preserved it?

 

[bees]

But I can't get over the fact that he squeezed her neck. Why would any reasonable person do that? He must have known that would cause her serious harm. My seven year old son knows that.

I agree but in his frantic state of trying to silence her he might just have been trying to overpower her enough to prevent her from running outside screaming. His immediate intention could have been to stop the struggle and noise. His actions were completely unreasonable but I'm not 100% convinced that he intended to kill her.

 

[MMENJBRIT]

Well, that wasn't my intention, but I see that I'm also being told that I have "some highly personal view" about how neighbours might actually bother to get to know each other rather than kill each other.

Probably my age - but I have a pretty strong feeling that I am far more likely to be helped out than strangled by my own next-door neighbours, whom I know well (even the couple who moved in only recently).

I don't think think this is indicative of which peer generation you belong to; It is more that you just didn't happen to have a potential murderer/crazy person in your midst/as your neighbor. Your statement is pointing towards JY somehow being partly at fault which I cannot accept.

 

[Myserty64]

I think I can guess the verdict.
Any guesses on the sentence?

 

[notsure]

Tabak judge says if jury is not sure then verdict should be not guilty.

What hope is there? They aren't even sure of the question.

 

[Clio]

just to clarify - with the actual evidence provided in court (not that there was much!) I too would struggle with a guilty verdict. But the way he has lied and omitted makes me not trust his testimony at all. So I also don't think it was manslaughter - not the way he has explained it, anyway. He would have been better off just telling the whole truth - he's going to prison for a decent amount of time anyway, so would the 'shame' of a full and frank confession really be that bad? He would get a lot more respect if he was just truthful.

BBM I suspect that if he had told the whole truth there wouldn't have been a trial. By telling the whole truth he would probably have been admitting to murder

 

[whiterum]

Disclaimer: I can only speak for the part of the world I know, but -

upon meeting, yes, but not after ten minutes of chit-chat. Greeting with a kiss, or a triple kiss, is also a no-no with people one doesn't know, or has just met for the first time. And it's a really big no-no when it comes to the members of the opposite sex, especially for men to initiate it - because most women would object strongly and pull away, plus it's easily misunderstood.

And on top of this, younger generations aren't all that keen on it, to be honest. It's sort of reserved for extended family because you don't see them all the time, or sometimes for good friends you haven't seen in a while.

In my experience, the further down south you go, the more likely they would be to greet-kiss, but it's by no means the standard thing to do.

Agree- and certainly not with first putting an arm around the back.

 

[FiestyFairy]

Oh dear. They created a document called "route to verdict". Sounds like they have over engineered this and confused themselves

 

[enzeder]

Unfortunately I don't have a link to the detils of him checking her emails but it was part of the prosecutions opening statement. His constant texting, emails and calls to TM definitely suggest he was needy and insecure to me

"Tabak logged in to the laptop he shared with his girlfriend Tanja and accessed the webmail address at Dyson - where she worked."
by skynewsgatherer via twitter October 11 at 12:31 AM
http://embed.scribblelive.com/Embed/v5.aspx?Id=30860&Page=1&ThemeId=2335

 

[veggiefan]

Your statement is pointing towards JY somehow being partly at fault which I cannot accept.

Whyever not? I doubt that she was at fault, but to say that you cannot accept that she was even partly at fault merely tells me that you are unable to keep an open mind. Sorry!

 

[veggiefan]

Oh dear. They created a document called "route to verdict". Sounds like they have over engineered this and confused themselves

No, a "route to verdict" is a series of questions prepared by the judge (usually in consulation with counsel) which tell the jury the questions they need to answer (and the order in which to do so) in order to reach a verdict.

It's something that is normally only done in complex cases, but here I suspect that the judge is concerned that they seem unable to agree on a verdict, and is hoping that this will direct their deliberations.

 

[2goldfish]

I still think there's not conclusive proof that he intended to kill her though and if I were a juror, I'd go for not guilty.

he's admitted to manslaughter, there should be no choice of NG.

 

[2goldfish]

Whyever not? I doubt that she was at fault, but to say that you cannot accept that she was even partly at fault merely tells me that you are unable to keep an open mind. Sorry!

I have to respectfully disagree. it's not ever someone's "fault" they went and got murdered


eta this is as bad as saying that short skirts make you get raped. no. just no.

 

[veggiefan]

I think I can guess the verdict.
Any guesses on the sentence?

Longer than it would have been if he had pleaded guilty to murder in the first place, is my guess.

 

[Nausicaa]

After 9 and a half hours, they come back saying "what was the question again?"

Don't forget that 10 or 11 of them may have understood perfectly well but if they have one or two of their number who have misunderstood and who are not willing or able to be instructed by their fellow-jurors, it may have been necessary to go back to get the weight of the judge's authority behind their explanations.

Personally I think jurors need advice on the kind of certainty they need. In this scientific age many people struggle with the idea of being sure about what goes on in people's minds, as it can't be weighed or photographed. But it would be the end of the whole concept of criminal guilt if we asked for scientific-type evidence in evaluating human actions. Of course this may be spelt out very well in the document the judge has draw their attention to. I wonder if it's available to the general public.

 

[veggiefan]

he's admitted to manslaughter, there should be no choice of NG.

He's not being tried for manslaughter: the jury merely have to decide whether or not he is guilty of murder.

 

[Nausicaa]

he's admitted to manslaughter, there should be no choice of NG.

He's being tried for murder Goldfish. Not guilty in this context = manslaughter.

Edit. Great Scott, I've just agreed with Veggiefan ! I'll try not to let it happen again.

 

[veggiefan]

I have to respectfully disagree. it's not ever someone's "fault" they went and got murdered

I'm afraid it sometimes is. A kills the son of B. B murders A in revenge.

One can hardly say that A is blameless when he has already killed the son of his murderer.